DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham Research Online

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham Research Online Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 08 June 2015 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Murray, Paul D. (2015) 'The reception of ARCIC I and II in Europe and discerning the strategy and agenda for ARCIC III.', Ecclesiology., 11 (2). pp. 199-218. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/17455316-01102005 Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk The Reception of ARCIC I and II in Europe and Discerning the Strategy and Agenda for ARCIC III Paul D. Murray Department of Theology & Religion, Durham University Abbey House, Palace Green, Durham, DH1 3RS [email protected] Abstract This essay derives from an address to the inaugural meeting of the third major phase of work of the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) at the Monastery of Bose, Italy in May 2011. ARCIC is the official organ for formal bilateral dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church. The methods devised by successive generations of ARCIC theologians have been highly influential in shaping the work of other bilateral ecumenical dialogues. The first half of the essay reviews and comments on the reception to-date within Europe of the first and second major phases of ARCIC’s work: ARCIC I (1971-1982) and ARCIC II (1987-2005). The second half then turns to identify the appropriate strategy for this crucial new phase of work, ARCIC III (2011-present). Throughout the essay clear recognition is given to the fact that ARCIC III is operating in a very different ecumenical context and in relation to a different set of challenges to those which prevailed when the classical ARCIC strategy was devised and as such requires a fresh strategic approach. The approach to contemporary ecumenical engagement and learning known as Receptive Ecumenism is presented here as providing this needed fresh strategy. Key words: Anglican – ARCIC – ecumenism – method - reception - Receptive Ecumenism - Roman Catholic - strategy 1 Introduction Following the historic meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, and Pope Paul VI in March 1966 in the heady days after the Second Vatican Council, it was announced that a formal bilateral dialogue process would be established between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church: the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC). The 1967 Preparatory Committee identified the primary objective as being ‘to further reconciliation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics as also to promote the wider unity of all Christians in their common Lord’.1 In pursuit of this aim there have been three major phases in ARCIC’s history: ARCIC I (1970- 1981), ARCIC II (1983-2005), and ARCIC III (2011-present).2 This essay derives from an address to the inaugural meeting of the third such major phase of ARCIC’s work at the Monastery of Bose, Italy in May 2011.3 Whilst some of the specific asides and informalities appropriate to a spoken address have been removed, the basic format and substance of the address as delivered have been largely preserved rather than any sustained attempt having been made to extend the basic argument into a full and exhaustive treatment of the topic.4 1 The Malta Report (2), available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm- docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19680102_malta-report_en.html. 2 Most of the official documents and declarations are available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_anglican- comm.htm. 3 I am grateful to my former Research Assistant, Mr Vasile A. Condrea, for helping to make this paper ready for publication in this form. With that, prior to delivery in May 2011, I appreciate advice and assistance variously received through conversations and exchanges with: the Right Rev. Donald Bolen, David Carter, Christiane Davisters, the Rev. Prof. Dr. Adelbert Denaux, Prof. Dr. Peter DeMey, the Right Rev. Christopher Hill, Mgr Mark Langham, the Most Rev. Kevin McDonald, His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O’Connor, the Rev. Canon Dr Alvyn Pettersen, Dame Dr Mary Tanner, the Rev. Neil Vigers, and Rev. Mark Woodruff. Most recently I appreciate the insightful comments of the two anonymous reviewers prior to publication. 4 For more extended treatments of the constructive proposal at issue here, see Paul D. Murray, ‘Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Receiving Gifts for Our Needs’, Louvain Studies, 33 (2008), pp. 30-45; also Murray (ed.), Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning: Exploring a Way for Contemporary Ecumenism, (Oxford: Oxford 2 The purpose of the presentation is twofold. Firstly, drawing upon the considerable number of essays and other extant materials on the subject, this address summarises and reflects on some of the key material pertaining to the European reception of the first two phases of ARCIC.5 Gaining perspective in this way on some of the successes and limitations of ARCIC I and ARCIC II leads naturally to reflecting on the very different ecumenical context and challenges facing ARCIC III. Consequently, having reflected in the first half of the address on the reception to-date of previous phases of ARCIC activity, culminating in recognition of the game-changing nature of more recent ecumenical challenges and the need this poses for a methodological gear-change,6 the second half complements this by reflecting on the appropriate strategy and agenda for ARCIC III. In doing so the address draws heavily on the work in Receptive Ecumenism that has been underway for a number of years now and advocates this as particularly fitting, and even urgent, for the methodology of University Press, 2008), particularly Murray, ‘Receptive Ecumenism and Catholic Learning: Establishing the Agenda’, pp. 5-25. More recently, see Murray, ‘ARCIC III: Recognising the Need for an Ecumenical Gear-Change’, One in Christ, 45 (2011), pp. 200-211; also Murray, ‘Introducing Receptive Ecumenism’, The Ecumenist: A Journal of Theology, Culture, and Society 51 (2014), pp. 1-8; and Murray, ‘Ecumenical Methodology’, in Paul McPartlan and Geoffrey Wainwright (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Ecumenism, (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), forthcoming. See also Paul D. Murray and Andrea L. Murray, ‘The Roots, Range, and Reach of Receptive Ecumenism’ in Clive Barrett (ed.), Unity in Process: Reflections on Ecumenism (London: Darton, Longman, Todd, 2012), pp. 79-94; and https://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/ccs/projects/receptiveecumenism/. 5 Of particular significance here are: Denaux, ‘The Anglican–Roman Catholic Dialogue and Its Reception’, unpublished paper; also Tanner, ‘From Vatican II to Mississauga – Lessons in Receptive Ecumenical Learning from the Anglican–Roman Catholic Bilateral’, in Murray (ed.), Receptive Ecumenism and the Call to Catholic Learning, op. cit., pp. 258-70; also Bolen, ‘Receptive Ecumenism and Recent Initiatives in the Catholic Church’s Dialogues with the Anglican Communion and the World Methodist Council’, in ibid., pp. 271-84. The material of this first half of the essay all now needs to be read in the context of the comprehensive study edited and in large part written by Charles Sherlock, with the lead assistance of Nicholas Sagovsky and Adelbert Denaux, together with some members of ARCIC III, Looking Forward to a Church Fully Reconciled: The Anglican Roman Catholic Commission 1983-2005 (ARCIC II), forthcoming. 6 See Murray, ‘ARCIC III: Recognising the Need for an Ecumenical Gear-Change’. 3 ARCIC III.7 This presentation of the address does not seek to provide exhaustive systematic articulation and analysis of Receptive Ecumenism and all of its implications – such can be found elsewhere – but rather records and documents the basic case for Receptive Ecumenism as presented to the May 2011 Bose meeting and so makes it fully available for further critical scrutiny and development. On the basis of this presentation Receptive Ecumenism was subsequently embraced as constituting a key methodological resource for ARCIC III.8 The basic fact of ARCIC III operating in a fundamentally different ecumenical context to that which characterised earlier phases of ARCIC activity, particularly so ARCIC I, was clear in the minds of all members of the Commission as we gathered in Bose in May 2011. Not only were we aware that the ARCIC process had been stalled for a number of years on account of significant new and still unresolved issues between the communions, in the run-in to departure for Bose we had each had the question starkly posed to us on a number of occasions, ‘What exactly is the point?’. As one Durham colleague had expressed it, ‘Surely anything that an ARCIC-style process can achieve has already been achieved?’ The point was pressed home: ‘Anyway, quite apart from the fact that both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and some of the more evangelical elements within Anglicanism have each shown themselves to be less than enthusiastic about those supposed achievements, issues around women’s ordination and human sexuality surely now make it impossible to continue pursuing the originating ARCIC concern of seeking to overcome causes of division in the service of achieving full structural and sacramental unity in the foreseeable future.’ The ARCIC documents may well be, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O’Connor described them, ‘Money in the bank’, but the interest accruing to them appears to 7 See the works cited in n.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do This in Memory of Me‖: the Genealogy and Theological
    ―DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME‖: THE GENEALOGY AND THEOLOGICAL APPROPRIATIONS OF MEMORY IN THE WORK OF JOHANN BAPTIST METZ A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Candace Kristina McLean J Matthew Ashley, Director Graduate Program in Theology Notre Dame, Indiana April 2012 © Copyright 2012 Candace Kristina McLean ―DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME‖: THE GENEALOGY AND THEOLOGICAL APPROPRIATIONS OF MEMORY IN THE WORK OF JOHANN BAPTIST METZ Abstract by Candace Kristina McLean Many theologians have been influenced by Johann Metz‘s theology of memory. To examine Metz‘s sources and how others expand upon his work, I propose a two-part thesis. Part one arises from critical appraisal of sources upon which Metz relies in formulating his idea of memory. While the thinkers Metz draws upon are secular Jewish philosophers, Metz appropriates key notions in specifically theological ways by linking them with the memoria passionis of Jesus Christ and the Jewish religious roots of memory. Furthermore, Metz‘s apocalyptic/eschatological hope for the future differs from secular and postmodern hopes for something surprising, new, and redemptive because Metz advocates real, faith-filled content for these ideas. Part two of the thesis is critical-constructive. Metz‘s idea of memory has the potential to be more than an anthropological category. While reticent to speak of God‘s memory, anamnestic reason becomes a way of speaking about God‘s work of salvation for and with humanity. This becomes clearer when his idea of memory is considered in conjunction with the theology of God‘s memory in the writings of Latin American Candace Kristina McLean liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Catholic Liturgical Renewal Forty-Five Years After Sacrosanctum Concilium: an Assessment KEITH F
    Roman Catholic Liturgical Renewal Forty-Five Years after Sacrosanctum Concilium: An Assessment KEITH F. PECKLERS, S.J. Next December 4 will mark the forty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, which the Council bishops approved with an astounding majority: 2,147 in favor and 4 opposed. The Constitution was solemnly approved by Pope Paul VI—the first decree to be promulgated by the Ecumenical Council. Vatican II was well aware of change in the world—probably more so than any of the twenty ecumenical councils that preceded it.1 It had emerged within the complex social context of the Cuban missile crisis, a rise in Communism, and military dictatorships in various corners of the globe. President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated only twelve days prior to the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.2 Despite those global crises, however, the Council generally viewed the world positively, and with a certain degree of optimism. The credibility of the Church’s message would necessarily depend on its capacity to reach far beyond the confines of the Catholic ghetto into the marketplace, into non-Christian and, indeed, non-religious spheres.3 It is important that the liturgical reforms be examined within such a framework. The extraordinary unanimity in the final vote on the Constitution on the Liturgy was the fruit of the fifty-year liturgical movement that had preceded the Council. The movement was successful because it did not grow in isolation but rather in tandem with church renewal promoted by the biblical, patristic, and ecumenical movements in that same historical period.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Hermeneutics of Henri De Lubac and Hans-Georg Gadamer Concerning Tradition, Community and Faith in Th
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA A Comparative Study of the Hermeneutics of Henri de Lubac and Hans-Georg Gadamer Concerning Tradition, Community and Faith in the Interpretation of Scripture A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Eric Joseph Jenislawski Washington, DC 2016 A Comparative Study of the Hermeneutics of Henri de Lubac and Hans-Georg Gadamer Concerning Tradition, Community and Faith in the Interpretation of Scripture Eric Joseph Jenislawski Director: John T. Ford, CSC, S.T.D. ABSTRACT This dissertation investigates and compares the hermeneutics of the French Jesuit theologian, Henri de Lubac (1896-1991), and the German philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2001). The writings of both Gadamer and de Lubac continue to generate scholarly investigation, including proposals to apply their insights to contemporary biblical interpretation. Although de Lubac and Gadamer were contemporaries, they never directly engaged each other’s writings; this dissertation brings their thought into dialogue. Chapter One provides a biographical overview of the lives of both scholars by situating the texts that will be examined within the broader context of each work. Since de Lubac approached the subject of biblical interpretation chiefly as an historian of exegesis, the first step in this comparative investigation is a formulation of de Lubac’s hermeneutical principles. Chapter Two, which constitutes the major portion of this dissertation, analyzes de Lubac’s works Catholicisme, Histoire et Esprit, Exégèse médiévale, and La Postérité spirituelle de Joachim de Flore in view of understanding his hermeneutics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hope in Action
    Introduction "Always be ready . ." “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). Within this biblical charge, addressed to early Christian communities suffering religious persecution at the turn of the second century, we find a concentrated expression of a task that has persistently pressed itself upon Christian theology. What is that hope which would sustain Christian communities down through the centuries? How might theologians offer an account of that hope responsive to the distinct demands of their time? Although the history of Christian theology might be read profitably as an effort to respond to these questions through the range of traditional theological topoi, beginning in the 1960s a number of prominent theologians in Europe would move these questions to the center of their theological projects as they attempted to renew the Christian tradition’s reading and appropriation of the doctrine of eschatology. Examined from a new historical vantage point, they identified in this doctrine a potent and compelling resource for offering a defense of the Christian’s hope under the conditions of the modern world. Two Catholic theologians who contributed to this turn to eschatology in the mid-1960s and for whom eschatology has been a 1 HOPE IN ACTION crucial concern ever since are Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–2009) and Johann Baptist Metz (b. 1928).1 In their early writings, each of these theologians worked to uncover the manner in which the Christian’s eschatological expectations for the future radically impinge on the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Address 1904-1984, Karl Rahner, Theologian
    PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 1904-1984, KARL RAHNER, THEOLOGIAN During this past winter as I began remote preparations for my talk I read all the presidential addresses since the first. Although our society was conceived in Washington in 1945 and came to birth in New York in 1946, the first formal presidential address did not occur until 1953 at the eighth meeting when Monsignor John Fearns of Dunwoodie spoke of the theological productivity of Pope Pius XII. A presidential address does not then pertain to the esse of our Society, some might say not even to its bene esse. The addresses differed notably in length from seven pages to thirty-five, the longest that of Lawrence J. Riley prepared for 1960, a text that would have taken him two hours to deliver. Their literary genres varied considerably: a position paper on a subject dear to the president's heart; a report on the progress and future of the Society; or a comment on the state of theology. At least three of the presidents went on to become bishops, though I doubt that their addresses contributed much to that honor. At first my plan was to compare Catholic theology in the years 1904 and 1984, since 1904 was the year of birth for John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Bernard Lonergan, and Karl Rahner. I began reading what various theological journals were publishing that year. As the weeks advanced and my research progressed, I paused on March 5 to commemorate the eightieth birthday of Karl Rahner. When I heard the news from Innsbruck that Rahner had passed into eternal life on March 30, I decided then to devote this address to his life and work.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverend Matthew L. Lamb
    Fr. Matthew L. Lamb’s C.V. Summer 2014 Reverend Matthew L. Lamb Priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Professor of Theology Ave Maria University 5050 Ave Maria Boulevard Ave Maria, Florida 34142-9670 Tel. 239-867-4433 [email protected] [email protected] I. EDUCATION: 1974 Doktor der Theologie summa cum laude, Catholic Faculty of Theology, Westfälsche Wilhelms University, Münster, Germany. 1967-71 Doctoral studies, University of Tübingen (one semester) and Münster (six semesters). 1966 S.T.L. cum laude, the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, Italy. 1964-67 Graduate studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. August 14, 1962 ordained to the Roman Catholic Priesthood, Trappist Monastery of the Holy Spirit, Conyers, Georgia; now a Roman Catholic priest incardinated in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. 1960-64 Theological studies at the Trappist Monastic Scholasticate, Monastery of the Holy Spirit, Conyers, Georgia. 1957-60 Philosophical studies at the Trappist Monastic Scholasticate, Conyers, Georgia. II. TEACHING: A. Marquette University, College of Arts & Sciences 1973-74 Instructor in Systematic Theology B. Marquette University, Graduate School 1974-79 Assistant Professor of Fundamental Theology 1979-85 Associate Professor of Fundamental Theology C. University of Chicago, Divinity School & Graduate School 1980 Visiting Associate Professor in Philosophical Theology. Page 1 of 44 Fr. Matthew L. Lamb’s C.V. Summer 2014 D. Boston College, College of Arts and Sciences, Graduate School 1985-88 Associate Professor of Theology 1989 - 2004 Professor of Theology E. Ave Maria University, Department of Theology 2004 - Professor of Theology and Chairman III. GRANTS AND ACADEMIC HONORS: 2009 – Cardinal Maida Chair, Ave Maria University.
    [Show full text]
  • Exister, Penser, Croire Autrement. Thématique Religieuse Féministe De La Revue Concilium Denise Veillette
    Document generated on 09/26/2021 9:04 a.m. Recherches féministes Exister, penser, croire autrement. Thématique religieuse féministe de la revue Concilium Denise Veillette L’autre salut Article abstract Volume 3, Number 2, 1990 The author selected 118 articles from the scientific journal Concilium,from 1972 to 1990, based on their relevance with respect to women. From those URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/057605ar articles, the author analyses some themes linked to four subjects : 1) feminist DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/057605ar theology : the knowledge and ethics; 2) the representations of God and Mary in the christian faith; 3) the remembrance and reality of women and the Church; See table of contents 4) women's everyday life, particularly at work and in motherhood. Sociology questions feminist theology as an expression of feminist thinking and as the voicing of a global project of change in society and in the Church. How to otherwise exist, think and have faith; in other words, how to live in a world Publisher(s) qualitatively different. Revue Recherches féministes ISSN 0838-4479 (print) 1705-9240 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Veillette, D. (1990). Exister, penser, croire autrement. Thématique religieuse féministe de la revue Concilium. Recherches féministes, 3(2), 31–71. https://doi.org/10.7202/057605ar Tous droits réservés © Recherches féministes, Université Laval, 1990 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Studies Citation Guide Revised October 10, 2016 for All Normal Types of Sources, E.G. Books, Journal Articles, Etc
    Theological Studies Citation Guide Revised October 10, 2016 For all normal types of sources, e.g. books, journal articles, etc., follow Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed (hereafter CMOS). A quick guide is available at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html. This quick chart is for theology-specific sources. Quotes from the “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1 NRSV, used throughout). Later, Bible the Gospel says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16). • Biblical citations are always in parenthetical citations, not footnotes. • Abbreviate the title of the biblical book according to the SBL Style Guide 8.3. A brief guide for this may be found at http://libguides.cedarville.edu/c.php?g=19058&p=107449. • Abbreviate the biblical translation. Omit citing any particular printing of the translation in a footnote. • If the translation is your own, cite as (Matt 5:12–13, author’s translation). Ancient sources Plato begins his Republic with a story about going down to the Piraeus “to other than the pray to the goddess.”1 Later he begins describing his famous allegory of the Bible cave.2 1 Plato, Republic 327a, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1968) 3. 2 Plato, Republic 514a, trans. Allan Bloom, 193. • Cite the work using whatever scholarly system is typical to the field in question; e.g. column and line number for Dead Sea Scrolls, Stephanus pagination for Plato, etc. • Do not abbreviate the author or text. • If you are quoting a modern translation, cite the work both in the scholarly system and the page of the modern translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Aspects of the Theological Legacy of Karl Rahner
    Declan Marmion Some Aspects of the Theological Legacy of Karl Rahner Introduction The German termvielseitig – versatile or many-sided – certainly applies to Karl Rahner. The word might be literally translated as ‘many-paged’, and this epithet too applies to Rahner, as many theology students can attest. His literary output was prodigious – even by 1974 it had reached almost 3,000 publications, including translations. A distinguished Irish theologian once said of him that in all his voluminous works, Rahner has really only one thing to say – but it is maddeningly difficult to name what that one thing is! Were I to venture a guess, I would point to Rahner’s repeated attempts to focus on the core of the Christian faith, a method that does not lead to a reduction of the essentials but, in the words of Herbert Vorgrimler, to ‘a concentration of the plurality into a few very basic thoughts,’ key terms (Schlüsselbegriffe), or better, key experiences (Schlüsselerlebnisse), of which the most fundamental is the experience of the self-communication of God.1 However, in this essay I will not focus on the experience of God in Rahner, though hopefully it will be apparent how Rahner’s ‘mystagogical’ style finds 1 ‘Seine [Rahner’s] Methode … ist die der Konzentration der Vielfalt auf ganz wenige Grundgedanken, wie er sagt, auf Schlüsselbegriffe oder noch besser auf Schlüsselerlebnisse. Der Grundgedanke dieser Theologie oderdas Schlüsselerlebnis ist, nachlesbar bei Rahner selber, die Erfahrung Gottes.’ Herbert Vorgrimler, ‘Gotteserfahrung im Alltag: Der Beitrag Karl Rahners zu Spiritualität und Mystik,’ in Albert Raffelt, ed., Karl Rahner in Erinnerung, Freiburger Akademieschriften, Band 8.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Principles of Translation of Liturgical Texts a Thesis
    The Vernacular as Sacred Language? A Study of the Principles of Translation of Liturgical Texts A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Athenaeum of Ohio/Mount St. Mary’s Seminary of the West in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts (Theology) By Andrew J. Hess Cincinnati, Ohio February 2019 Abstract The Second Vatican Council ushered in an era of liturgical renewal in many ways unlike any renewal in the centuries that preceded it. Perhaps the most obvious and challenging expression of this renewal presented itself in the widespread introduction of the vernacular into the Liturgy. Throughout its history the Church has been honing its theology and worship through precise language within liturgical prayer, and with the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium the work of liturgical theologians became yoked in a radical way to linguistics as they attempted to communicate this same theology in the vernacular. This thesis examines the ongoing process and development of the principles of translation theory that have governed the work of translators over the course of the past six decades. In doing so, it seeks to show that the Church’s preference for the principles of formal equivalence (adopted into the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam) over those of dynamic equivalence (adopted into the document Comme le Prévoit) is not rooted in opposition to the principle of participatio actuosa. Rather, this preference is deeply rooted in a philosophical and theological worldview that centers on the presence of the Logos. Undergirded by the philosophy of George Steiner, who argues for a fundamental Presence that makes all language intelligible, and the liturgical theology of Pope Benedict XVI, which is shaped by the Word, this thesis argues for the primacy of the Logos over anthropos as the only manner in which to faithfully and adequately translate liturgical texts into vernacular tongues.
    [Show full text]
  • Christopher J. Ruddy______
    Christopher J. Ruddy________________________________ School of Theology and Religious Studies The Catholic University of America 620 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, D.C. 20064 [email protected] 202.319.6506 (phone) 202.319.5704 (fax) Education Ph.D., Systematic Theology, University of Notre Dame, 2001 M.T.S., Theology, Harvard Divinity School, 1996 B.A., English Language and Literature, Yale College, 1993 Experience Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (2009-Present) Associate Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota (2008-2009) Assistant Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota (2003-2008) Assistant Professor of Theology, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, Collegeville/St. Joseph, Minnesota (2001-03) Intern, Commonweal Magazine, New York, New York (1999-2000) Jesuit Volunteer Corps, Hartford, Connecticut (1993-94) Publications Books Tested in Every Way: The Catholic Priesthood in Today’s Church (Herder & Herder, 2006). The Local Church: Tillard and the Future of Catholic Ecclesiology (Herder & Herder, 2006). Professional Articles and Book-Chapters “The Primacy of Receptivity: Joseph Ratzinger’s Theology of Ecclesial Reform.” The Thomist. [Forthcoming] “Deus Adorans, Homo Adorans: Joseph Ratzinger’s Liturgical Christology and Anthropology,” in Festschrift TBA (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2019) [Forthcoming] “The Role of the Laity in Responding to the Sex Abuse Crisis: Theological and Historical Foundations.” Origins 48 (April 4, 2019): 711-15. 1 “‘What Are You Looking At?’: Screens, Faces, and the Place of Contemplation in Seminary Formation,” in Culture, Contemplation, and Seminary Formation, ed. James Keating (Omaha, NE: IPF Publications, 2018): 75-98.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Francis Moment”: a New Kairos for Catholic Ecclesiology
    Plenary Session: Presidential Address THE “FRANCIS MOMENT”: A NEW KAIROS FOR CATHOLIC ECCLESIOLOGY Presidential Address RICHARD R. GAILLARDETZ It was about four months ago that I decided to consider the ecclesial vision of Pope Francis as my presidential address, and proposed the title, “The Francis Moment.” Since that time, I fear that this “Francis moment” may soon give way to a kind of “Francis fatigue” and even a “Francis backlash.” The popular media have continued to fawn over our first Latin American and Jesuit pope. Some more sophisticated commentators have complained, however, that the popularity of Francis is dangerous insofar as it can mask deep fissures in the church and overlook the limits of papal authority. The always thoughtful Paul Baumann recently warned that: Whatever people think Pope Francis is offering, he is no magician; he can’t alter the course of secular history or bridge the church’s deepening ideological divisions simply by asserting what in truth are the papacy’s rather anemic powers. In this light, the inordinate attention paid to the papacy, while perhaps good for business, is not good for the church. Why not? Because it encourages the illusion that what ails the church can be cured by one man, especially by a new man. In truth no pope possesses that kind of power, thank God.1 More recently, NCR’s Jamie Manson has drawn our attention to the dispute between the LCWR and the Vatican, a situation that confirms her initial judgment, made over a year ago, that from a doctrinal perspective, little is likely to change under Francis.2 Others are disheartened by news of the CDF’s investigation of a theological giant in the Asian church, Michael Amaladoss.
    [Show full text]